58 FRANCIS HEMMING 



that Arhopala phryxus was the type-species and accordingly that statement ranks as a valid 

 type-selection. (Previously, in 1840 {Hist. nat. Ins. 3 : 462) Blanchard had selected Papilio 

 apidanus Cramer, [1777], but this action was invalid, because that nominal species was not 

 included in Arhopala by Boisduval at the time when he established that genus. 



Although, as explained above, Papilio apidanus is not the type-species of Arhopala, it was, 

 until the recent revision of the Arhopala-Group by Evans (1957), commonly regarded as being 

 congeneric with Arhopala phryxus. Inevitably, therefore, at the time when Papilio apidanus 

 was erroneously believed to be the type-species of the older-established genus Amblypodia 

 Horsfield, [1829], the name Arhopala Boisduval was (equally incorrectly) treated as a junior 

 subjective synonym of Amblypodia. When however it was established that the above view 

 in regard to the type-species of Amblypodia was incorrect, the name Arhopala w&s once move 

 (correctly) recognized as the oldest available generic name for the group always known as the 

 Arhopala-Group . This purely taxonomic question is referred to here, in order to put on record 

 that the name, if it can be so called, Amblypodia auct. nee Horsfield falls in the synonymy of 

 Arhopala Boisduval in the broad sense in which that name was used prior to Evans's revision 

 of the Arhopala-Group . Though Papilio apidanus, the former pseudotype of Amblypodia, is 

 still treated as a member of the Arhopala-Group, it is no longer — under Evans's arrangement — 

 treated as actually being a member of the genus Arhopala (sens, str.), having been removed to 

 the genus Flos Doherty, 1889, of which it is the type-species by original designation. (Prior 

 to Evans's revision, the name Flos Doherty, it may be noted, never won any general accept- 

 ance and was treated as being no more than a junior subjective synonym of Arhopala.) 



The nominal species Arhopala phryxus Boisduval, the type-species of Arhopala, is currently 

 treated subjectively on taxonomic grounds as representing the same taxon as that represented 

 by the older-established nominal species Papilio helius Cramer, [1779] (Uitl. Kapellen 3(17) : 

 15, pi. 201, figs F, G). This name is not however available for the present species because it 

 is a homonym of the name Papilio helius Cramer (ibid. 3 (17) : 10, pi. 198, fig. B) (a name 

 applying to a species of a different family) and precedence was given by the First Reviser 

 (Hemming, 1934, Gen. Names hoi. Butts 1 : 121) to the name as applied on page 10 (pi. 

 198), to the non-Lycaenid species, over this name as applied on page 15 (pi. 201) to the 

 present Lycaenid species. This selection was made under the misapprehension that the 

 prinicple of page precedence applied in cases of this sort, but this does not invalidate the choice 

 then made as to the relative precedence to be accorded to these two names, which was quite 

 definite and is therefore valid (Article 24 (a)). 



ARIADNE Horsfield, [1829], Descr. Cat. Lepid. Ins. Mus. East India Coy (2) : [3] (ref. pi. vi]. 

 Type-species by monotypy : Papilio coryta Cramer, [1776], Uitl. Kapellen 1 (8) : 136, 

 pi. 86, figs E, F. 



The taxon represented by the nominal species Papilio coryta Cramer is currently treated 

 subjectively on taxonomic grounds as being the same as that represented by the nominal 

 species Papilio ariadne Linnaeus, 1763 (Amoen. acad. 6 : 407). It may certainly be concluded 

 that Horsfield himself held this taxonomic view and that it was on this account that he chose 

 the name " Ariadne " as the name for this genus 



ARICIA R. L., 181 7, Jenaische Allgem. Lit. Ztg, Jena 14, No. 1 : 280. Type-species by selec- 

 tion by Tutt (15th May 1906, Ent. Rec. 18 : 131) : Papilio agestis [Denis & Schiff ermiiller] , 

 1775, Ankiindung eines syst. Werkes Schmett. Wiener Gegend : 184, No. N.13. 



Tutt selected the above species as type-species twice almost simultaneously in 1906, the 

 second selection being published on 15th July of that year (Nat. Hist. Brit. Butts 1 (12) : 

 3i3)- 



ARICORIS Westwood, [October 1851], in Doubleday, Gen. diurn. Lep. (2) : pi. 72, figs 7, 8. 

 Type-species by selection by Scudder (1875, Proc. amer. Acad. Arts Sci., Boston 10 : 120) : 

 Aricoris tisiphone Westwood, [October 1851], in Doubleday, ibid. (2) : pi. 72, fig. 7. 



Westwood placed two species in this genus in his plate 72, but he added five other species 

 in his text ( : 449) , which was published a little later — on 7th November 1 85 1 . The importance 



